Issue 3

The environmental impact information which has been provided to the public on which we are asked to comment is woefully inadequate for such purposes .More specific information is especially needed on the current noise levels in the borough , then day and night time limits across the impacted areas should be proposed and agreed following public consultation . Then ongoing regular independant noise monitoring would need to be introduced to ensure adherence by the airport operators to these levels . If not the environmental impact could be substantial and detrimental to the local economy as those impacted move away .

An expansion of London Southend airport will bring with it a horrendous degradation of the local environment; local people will not be able to enjoy an a sunny afternoon in their gardens, our school children will not be able to enjoy their break time in school playgraounds, day trippers to the town will not bother to come to Southend. The frequency of the planes in and out of the airport will result in extremely high noise levels and the emmissions from the engines on take off and landing will be much, much higher than in normal flight and will be felt or rather smelt throughout the town.

How is it proposed to maintain the quality of life for residents with more noise and pollution. That's impossible.

we dont need another business park!!!

I do not agree that the options have carefully considered the location or the residents quality of life. To me, it seems that the proposals are based on box ticking - throw in a few open spaces, environmental visitor centres etc - and hope that bureaucracy will run its course.
If the options were truly considering the area or residents, they would be based on an independent report.

n

The whole scheme is a total disaster area.

We already have fumes entering our houses on some days and more so in our gardens. How will this impact on local schools and my childrens health with increased flights? We have lived with the airport as it is for 50yrs plus why try and extend it and affect the health of hundreds of people, including our elderly and young children?

I do not see how environmental concerns can sit comfortably beside the major developement of an airport and all its support requirements. All the eco gable does not change the fact that increased flights and ground based industry with all the infrastucture it demands will only add to the polution atributed to global warming. Providing a "traffic management system" and additional cycle routes will not put out the fires of Rome !!

The nice words contained herein discuss areas and issues concerning development of local environmental concerns that are already in place, and have been for some considerable time. Or to start work before a public consultation has ended. Shoddy jingoism

Increased aircraft movement & traffic can not be adewquately supported locally.

I whole heartedly support this issue.

their is little benefit to the area of a larger airport, any expansion only benefits other areas and causes loss of environment, peace and lifestyle for residents

their is little benefit to the area of a larger airport, any expansion only benefits other areas and causes loss of environment, peace and lifestyle for residents

their is little benefit to the area of a larger airport, any expansion only benefits other areas and causes loss of environment, peace and lifestyle for residents

I object simply because I don't believe that any real consideration will be given to the environmental impact of the airport development. Words are easy action is rarely forthcoming!

I object on the grounds that I do not agree with airport expansion.

I am totally opposed to London Southend going ahead as it will eventually mean constant noise in the surrounding area and congested traffic in spite of proposals for new access roads.

I am concerned for heavier planes landing and taking off over residential area. Cargo planes noise - although you say there will be restrictions. Pollution over residential area not wanted.

We need opportunity to object if noise level goes above the acceptable limit and objections to be listened to and acted upon.

I have little confidence that such issues will be properly managed. There is likely to be a creeping intrusion. As we become accustomed to a certain level of disruption so it will be increased further.
Whilst regeneration of the area is required it should be done through other ways than increasing the airport.

Thank you for your letter of 19 2 09 giving opportunity to respond to above consultation.

At 1.5 Preferred Options, you say "feedback from Issues and Options Report has been carefully considered and used to prepare Preferred Options for future development in the area". In spite of statement that the bulk of respondents objected to "Scenario 3 - High Growth2, this is the option chosen, with comment at a meeting in the Freight House that the exercise was not meant to be a referendum. That casts doubt on its validity.

I object to the Preferred option as follows.

Issue 2 Jaap as employment area

Vide HAAP, where demolition of Hockley trading estate is proposed for housing etc, we hear traders are to be moved to new Saxon Business park. No doubt other trading sites will be moved there also for similar reasons. So much for proposed 5450 new jobs in the JAAP.

Issue 3 development/environment

Inspite of proposed "quieter more fuel efficient planes than predecessors"< it is "accepted environmental impacts (noise) will need to be carefully considered and assessed as a result of increased aircraft movements and traffic in area". There is some contradiction here and an admission that those under the flight path in Southend area will suffer. Two area authorities "Continuing to work to establish a baseline of noise levels" is admission that proximity to a large, dense residential area of proposed expanded airport is possibly unacceptable and a "Noise Evaluation Statement" by any future operator will just whitewash it.

Transport

Would it be a good idea to get full infrastructure details of road and transport networks worked out first? There is no guarantee that a hypothetical operator will pay for SERT or any other initiatives.

Policies T1-2

It appears from Nestuda Way to Warners Bridge a lot more demolition of homes will occur than is envisaged already for extending the runway. Although St Lawrence church was saved, the addition construction, followed by transiting planes might well shake it to pieces. Are we also reconsidering the bypass from Shoebury through Rochford green belt here?

Policy T3

If Cherry Orchard Way is to be dualled, what requirements will there be to further 'update' the remainder of b1013 between Rayleigh and Rochford, that has already increased congestion since the cherry Orchard bypass was opened? Compulsory purchase of front gardens was used to widen b1013 in Hockley in the 1960s. This time homes will go as well.

Policy T9

There is already airport provision at Stansted. Why should operators come here? It does appear from "existing and proposed communities with new development sites...support...promote..new development...by public transport links" that airport expansion is a ploy to provide future new road networks round south east Essex, for massive new development. Southend is already fully developed and evidently needs to expand. The initial amendment of the green belt boundary proposed in the document could show the way for more in the future for development.

My quality of life will take a huge nose dive if this goes ahead. I strongly object.

the environmental impact willbe massive no matter how much the council want to play this down - i strongly object to any development plan - this will only lead to countless negative problems associated.

I object because although the Councils admit that noise and air quality will have to be carefully considered there is nothing in the JAAP which enables interested residents to understand the full implication of either of these key issues. The quality of life will reduce as soon as one is woken up at night, if it happens 3 or 4 times you may go mad! I want some imput into the actual levels that will arise.

Unfortunatly with expansion comes increased noise and worsening air quailty to the detriment of people living in Rochford/Southend. Having quieter aircraft does not mean they are quiet, just not as noisy. You cannot manage noise its noisy! A plane taking off and landing creates increased noise levels around Rochford not just the airport. Consider moving the airport to Maplin then nosie WILL be reduced.

The air transport industry globally is reducing its current capacity and given there is no strategic importance to Southend's development it's commercial development is pure high risk financial speculation.

There is little opportunity for long-term expansion at Southend as it has only one runway in close proximity to residential areas, an historic church and sites of special scientific interest or SSSI's. If Southend was seen as a viable interim solution how would future expansion take place? It could only come from destroying residential, historic and environmentally sensitive areas and expanding the airport.

No more development - the local infra structure can not cope with traffic now - we need more green space not less. There is no need to monitor environmental impact if there is nothing impacting on it to start with.

Nothing specific is given. No real consideration has been made of the true effects of the proposals. Had this been done already it would have been detailed to the public.

Another vague section with no real plans for monitoring and enforcement of additional noise and pollution or consultation with the local population to what they consider is acceptable levels.

Airplanes are quieter, but they are not silent. They are also more efficient, but they still produce emissions.

There needs to be a plan which shows real noise figures in decibels then people will be able to make an informed choice

The green lung is just a political exercise to be seen to be compensating for the environmental impact to the area from the airplanes and the extra of traffic whether by train or road.Current commuters already suffer on their journeys to and from work this will increase their discomfort with holiday makers luggage and children. especially as most flights are early morning and evening so that the carriers can to a daily complete to and from destination

A PLAN TO EXPAND THE AIRPORT WAS STOPPED IN 1966 ON ENVIRONMENTAL GROUNDS AND 40 YEARS ON SURELY WE SHOULD BE MORE INCLINED TO STOP ANY DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT DUE TO NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION.

I do not agree that the residents best interests will be looked after.Money is the main objective and who will benefit from it certainly not the local residents.